When myths go wrong

Distorted interpretations and abusive uses of the Ham–Noah curse tale abound. This essay explores five common interpretations. Cohen's overly‐imaginative interpretation links wine, genitalia, and reproduction to accent Noah's potency and Ham's presumed designs on that potency. Nineteenth‐century slave owners used the text to undergird dangerous fantasies of white superiority. Fundamentalists, thinking Ham sodomised his father, inappropriately use the text to condemn modern homoeroticism. Some see Ham as uncontrolled libido. Intra‐biblical connections may suggest that Ham's act was maternal incest. The danger of getting stuck in ancient mythostories calls for a creative critique. Perryman puts Ham on trial in an effort to dismantle racist uses of the text, suggesting that a carnivalesque biblical hermeneutic that mocks the injustices perpetuated by this text may be the most effective way to counter textual abuse

Argument (complex analysis · Art · Curse · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Literature · Mythology · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Stress (linguistics · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Anthropology · Mormonism, Religion, and History · Philosophy · Psychology · Race, History, and American Society